Here is the first quote: “WHO (World Health Organization), for example, for years defined pandemics as outbreaks causing ‘enormous numbers of deaths and illness,’ but in early May, removed this phrase from the definition.”

So WHO successfully maintained the emotional punch of a “pandemic” while cutting the heart out of its essential meaning. The fear is still there, but the logic is gone. Suddenly, a dreaded pandemic doesn’t have to have lots of deaths.

Quite a clever ruse. George Orwell vindicated once again.

By declaring Swine Flu a “global pandemic,” and at the same time redefining and diluting the understood meaning of the word “pandemic,” WHO manages to assume bureaucratic power over the actions of nations, even if the death rate is very small. WHO stays in charge. Debate about the actual severity of the health threat is derailed because, well, it’s already been declared a pandemic. And the level of public fear is maintained.

That is how propaganda works.

From this WHO ruse (and from statistics), we can infer that pandemic Swine Flu as a concept is being propped up by failing to disclose that the “disease” isn’t killing people left and right. Otherwise, why remove “enormous numbers of deaths” from the definition of “pandemic?”

Here is the second quote from Doshi’s article: “On 26 April, with 20 cases [of Swine Flu] and no deaths in the US, the Department of Health and Human Services declared a nationwide public health emergency.”

What we’re looking at here is institutional ambition. How does a government agency earn its keep? How does an agency like the Department of Health and Human Services go up on the Hill and extract big-time funding from Congress?

With 20, TWENTY, cases of so-called Swine Flu, and NO deaths, an effect less than the number of people killed in New York by toasters falling out of apartment windows, the Department of Health and Human Services declares a national emergency.

And the media comply. No questions are asked. Headlines trumpet the news. A new round of fear begins.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

For many years as a reporter covering medical stories, I have taken to task public health agencies, such as WHO and the CDC. I’m used to their lies.

In that regard, I came across a mind-boggling CDC quote dug up by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (twitter), who has done terrific work researching vaccine dangers.

The quote comes from the 6th edition of Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the so-called Pink Book, published by the CDC. It’s an attempt to squelch debate about the DTaP vaccine, which is given to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. Over the years, much has been written about the severe adverse effects of this combination vaccine—e.g., brain damage, seizures, very high fever, death.

The CDC quote (see also here) asserts that, generally, there is no definable disease “syndrome” caused by vaccines. It then makes several more astonishing claims.

“There is no distinct syndrome from vaccine administration, and therefore, many temporally associated adverse events probably represent background illness rather than illness caused by the vaccine…The DTaP may stimulate or precipitate inevitable symptoms of underlying CNS [Central Nervous System] disorder, such as seizures, infantile spasms, epilepsy or SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome]. By chance alone, some of these cases will seem to be temporally related to DPaT.”

Read the quote several times to absorb the full force of its message. It reminds me of the attempts to shunt aside deaths caused by AZT, the AIDS drug, which viciously attacks the immune system. In that case, the doctor or researcher will say, “The patient didn’t die from the effects of AZT. The destructive action of AIDS, by coincidence, simply speeded up after the drug was given.”

The CDC is claiming the DTaP vaccine stimulates a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION in a baby: The baby already had a life-threatening central nervous system illness. The illness was temporarily on hold. The vaccine brought it to light, and then the baby died.

Suddenly—with no evidence offered—vaccines have this magical ability to cause underlying illness to jump into action. The vaccine isn’t at fault. The baby was already on the road to brain damage or death.

I’ve seen some pretty wild excuses offered for vaccine-induced destruction, but this one takes the cake. Whoever cooked it up should receive some sort of medical prize for Bald-Faced Lying. Then he can be arrested for contributing to negligent homicide.

Generally speaking, the untested medical assumption is this: “We know vaccines cause no harm. Therefore, if a vaccine recipient becomes ill or dies, the cause must reside in the patient.” In the field of logic, this is called assuming what you are trying to prove.

Surgical errors could be accounted for in this way, too. “Yes, we did remove the patient’s testicles while we were doing the appendectomy. But you see, we knew he had testicular cancer, so we needed to take care of that while we were in the area. What’s that? How did we know he had testicular cancer? Well, we would never remove his testicles by mistake. Therefore, we must have known we had a legitimate reason to take them off. Can’t you see that?”

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

USA Today: “The organizing committee for the Pyeongchang Olympics has called in 900 military personnel after more than 1,200 security workers were pulled off duty because of concerns about the spread of the Norovirus, Christophe Dubi, IOC executive director of the Olympic Games said Tuesday.”

“Later Tuesday evening, the organizing committee said 32 cases of Norovirus had been confirmed and those people were quarantined after being treated. Those 32 cases involve 21 private security staff members from the Horeb Youth Center and 11 people from other locations, including three foreigners.”

“In a statement, POCOG said that starting Sunday workers reported headaches, stomach pain and diarrhea. The Gangwon Province Health and Environment Research Center found 41 workers with symptoms that might be related to the virus. The others have been pulled from duty to prevent possible spreading of the illness.”

“The workers are largely responsible for checking credentials and screening baggage entering the venues. The military personnel were brought in from about 40 minutes away.”

“…The organizing committee said ground water used in food and beverages at the Horeb Youth Centre — a housing facility — was suspected.”

Here’s the problem. Officials admit the illness appears to be coming from contaminated water, and you can’t reduce that situation to a single virus. Forget the sophisticated analysis. Bad water contains bad things. A number of them. If you didn’t clean up the water in the first place, you’re going to have trouble.

The norovirus, as an explanation, is a convenient cover story. It seems to explain the outbreak of illness—but it doesn’t.

The virus hunters at the CDC are trained to look for the single viral culprit. That’s what they always do. They’re medical, not environmental. They don’t want to find the true answer when it’s something in the environment, because medical solutions don’t work. You have to clean up the water.

Over the past 30 years of investigating medical ops, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this pattern repeated. Ignore the environmental contamination; blame a single virus. It’s a sham.

Taken to an extreme, you would get something like this—gene researchers look forward to day when genetic modifications would protect humans from all sorts of environmental contamination.

Translation: Let corporations and governments pollute to their heart’s content; “altered” humans would be safe.

That may sound like science fiction. And it is. But researchers are working to make it fact.

They’ll fail.

Meanwhile, at the Olympics, there better be a fleet of huge trucks carrying clean water to the workers and the athletes, or the problems they’ve encountered so far are going to get worse, much worse.

Years ago, in an off-the-record conversation, a public health official readily admitted to me that contaminated water always contains a number of noxious substances that endanger human health. “If you’re saying it’s this virus or that virus, you’re lying,” he said. “You have to go back to the beginning and clean up the water.”

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

For the past year or so, I’ve been following a critical situation in New Zealand, where local communities decide whether to fluoridate their water supplies. A number of communities have said no.

A bill in the national parliament would change all that.

If the bill passes, the decision to fluoridate would fall into the hands of so-called District Health Boards—which are part of a federal system. At that point, New Zealand would be fluoridated as a matter of top-down command; local choice would be gone.

Now, there is a battle going on in the parliament about allowing debate on the science of fluoridation. Apparently, the pro-fluoridation forces are terrified that open presentations will expose official lies and destroy their position.

National Party health spokesperson, Jonathan Coleman (twitter; and, see this tweet), is castigating the Government for allowing the latest science on fluoridation to be aired. “This is now going to unfairly colour the debate and raise questions in people’s minds, especially MPs who are going to vote on these Bills,” says Coleman.

It is hard to fathom why listening to both sides of an issue will “unfairly” colour the debate.

Prof Paul Connett is booked to give a presentation to all Parliamentarians in February during his speaking tour of New Zealand. He will explain the latest science on fluoride’s adverse health effects – particularly the growing research on the link between fluoride and the lowering of IQ.

A multi-million-dollar landmark US Government funded study published last year found that children who were exposed to fluoride in utero (at the same levels NZ children are exposed to) caused a drop of around five IQ points. This study was carried out by researchers in the top Universities of North America, such as Harvard, Michigan, Toronto and McGill…This comes on top of the 52 (out of 58) human studies and hundreds of animal studies that have also found fluoride interferes with brain function.

For Jonathan Coleman to call this “junk science” is preposterous.

New Zealand is one of the few remaining countries that still has fluoridation. 98% of Europe has rejected it. Ministry of Health statistics from 2009 (the latest available) show that over 40% of New Zealand children have some form of dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning. The evidence that New Zealand children are being put in harm’s way is now overwhelming.

Fluoride Free New Zealand congratulates the Government for not being bullied by the likes of Jonathan Coleman and others – who are now showing signs of desperation to keep people away from the information.

Prof Connett will be speaking in a number of towns and cities that are not fluoridated. Prof Connett holds a B.A. (Honours) in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University, England and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Dartmouth College. He is a world leading expert in fluoridation and has spoken in fifty-two countries on this issue and the issue of Waste Management. Details of his Talks can be found at fluoridefree.org.nz.

—end of press release—

New Zealand has reached a point where open and honest discussion is under the gun.

Professor Connett must be allowed to speak before the parliament. All attempts to stop him must be derailed.

The study concluded: “…higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y.”

In short, pregnant women exposed to fluorides give birth to children who later show up with lower IQ.

Q (Rappoport): There is a new study on the effect of fluorides on IQ. Several questions: Do you believe the study is well done? Does it deserve our attention? What conclusions does it draw?

A (Connett): This is a very important study…Taken at face value it should have been a good study. It was financed largely by the NIEHS [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the US National Institutes of Health], which of course is pro-fluoridation. It was conducted largely by specialists in the field who have done similar studies on other neurotoxicants. None of them to my knowledge had taken a public position against water fluoridation (indeed one was known to be pro-fluoridation) so the notion of bias here was small…

Q: What is the reaction of public health agencies to the new study?

A: Pro-fluoridation agencies have done what they always do – attack any study that finds harm. They are all more interested in protecting the archaic practice of water fluoridation than to protect the health of our children. Extraordinary that any civil servant should think that children’s teeth are more important than their brains! The people at the top are desperately trying to protect a policy they have waxed lyrical about for 70 years. The people in the middle are taught to promote “policy” not question it and the people at the bottom simply believe what they were taught at dental or medical school and reinforced by their professional bodies. Others I think are very concerned that if they lose fluoridation it will affect the public’s trust in other public health practices – a clear example would be vaccination, a multi-billion dollar interest supported by the CDC (a big champion of fluoridation).

Q: How have major media reacted to the new fluoridation study?

A: Apart from CNN and CTV in Canada and Newsweek there has been little coverage by the mainstream media. It was not covered by the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or any other major newspaper. That again is extraordinary for a study of this significance. Sadly, this is also typical of these outlets when it comes to the detailed science on this issue. They simply don’t want to know.

Q: I’ve been covering the fluoride situation [fluoridating water supplies] in New Zealand. Last I heard, there was a move to take decision-making away from local governments and put it in the hands of federal health councils, who would determine whether to fluoridate water supplies. Can you give me an update?

A: Yes this is a dreadful development. Thus, in addition to the health issues we now have democracy threatened in NZ. Yesterday [11/16/17], the new government re-introduced the bill [handing over fluoridating decisions to federal authorities] for a second reading. One can only hope that the coalition partners will not be bullied into going along with this. A NZ first member is strongly against this bill. I would hope that the Green Party will not be railroaded on this either. But they have been very weak so far.

Q: I’ve been told that many years ago, you were in favor of water fluoridation. What was the turning point? What made you change your mind?

A: To be more accurate I didn’t want to get involved. I was so busy teaching chemistry and working on waste [disposal issues] (which has taken me to 49 states and 65 other countries) that I didn’t have time for a third issue. And I certainly didn’t want a third issue in which if I got involved would get me labelled as “loony tunes.” Over the years I was approached by three different people to get involved…I resisted them all. Then someone I couldn’t resist twisted my arm…– my wife – in 1996. When I read the literature she had amassed I was both shocked with what I learned and embarrassed that I had not got involved before. I have spent the last 21 years trying to make amends.

—end of interview—

The New Zealand government is teetering on the edge of a fascist decision to poison its own people. This edict must not go forward.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Like this:

“Imagine this. A big-time doctor from the US Biological Warfare Group waddles into a meeting room, where a collection of Army, CIA, NSA, and DHS representatives sit quietly in their chairs. He says: ‘So I understand you boys want to put on a little domestic bioterror show, to keep the natives from becoming too restless. Well, the first thing you need to know is, germs don’t obey orders. Forget all that sci-fi nonsense. Germs work and they don’t work. It’s a crapshoot. You could have a big fat dud on your hands. I can tell you how to make it work, though, if you give up on your fancy high-tech wet dreams…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are future scenarios which, with enough exposure before they’re staged, can be stopped—or at least analyzed correctly when they occur.

A calculated bioterror event is one of those.

The primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems operate at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that less than 2% of people exposed get sick or die.

But there is another strategy that should be understood:

The use of a germ as a cover story for a chemical.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was:

The spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world, is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DOD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy and horror produce the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death in the small town, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctor’s offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s over a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, and Ebola, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Several years ago, I spoke with a biologist about the fake bioterror scenario I’ve sketched out above. His comment was: “Do you think any mainstream scientist would dare go into that cordoned-off town and actually check the area for a highly toxic chemical? He’d be blackballed, exiled, and discredited in a minute. The authorities would call him crazy. And that’s if he were lucky.”

Such is “science,” these days. A researcher can discover anything he wants to, if it’s approved. Otherwise, the door is closed.

After 30 years of covering and reporting on deep science fraud, I can tell you that most scientists know, without instructions from above, the dimensions of their “permitted territory.” They can sniff out career danger from a mile away.

GMOs? Roundup? Other toxic pesticides? Climate change? Vaccines? Medical drugs? Diagnostic medical tests? Actual environmental pollution? Mercury? Chemicals in food? Radiation? Nuclear power plants? Fracking? Fluorides? On these and a whole host of other issues, government is centrally involved as a ruling force. And there are armies of compliant scientists ready and willing to carry out preferred government (and corporate) dictates. These scientists already know the answers before the questions are even asked.

Meanwhile, propaganda rivers flow, extolling the glories of science.

It’s a dream situation, for the terminally corrupt.

A huge number of scientists, who don’t actually participate in research fraud, stand back and watch it happen and say nothing. They see the handwriting on the wall in very large letters.

In 1988, while writing my first book, AIDS INC., I interviewed a highly respected virologist at a US university. I mentioned that several molecular biologists were challenging the HIV-causation hypothesis of AIDS. He told me that he and a number of his colleagues were aware that “a serious problem” existed concerning evidence for the hypothesis, but they were all going to “let this one go.” It was too political, he said.

Yes, well, an enormous amount of science turns out to be political.

Keeping one’s head down and letting things go by may not be part of a PhD curriculum, but soon after school is out, researchers enter a different kind of training.

A main theme then pops up: do you want a career, or do you want to live in the middle of nowhere, in exile?

As it so happens, building a broad scientific consensus resting on sand is a straightforward job. It takes time and money, but the work requires no brilliance.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The use of “could be,” “may be,” “possible,” and other bloviations to suggest breakthroughs are right around the corner.

This is not “new research is confirmed.” This is vague suggestion on the level of stock market predictions and long-term weather forecasts.

Let me show you.

I’m looking at medicalnewstoday.com, for January 31st. Here are headlines:

BLOCKING VITAMIN B-2 MAY STOP CANCER.

E-CIGARETTES MAY CAUSE CANCER AND HEART DISEASE.

BODY CLOCK DISRUPTIONS MAY BE AN EARLY SIGN OF ALZHEIMER’S.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: ‘GUARDIAN MOLECULE’ MAY LEAD TO NEW TREATMENT.

THIS PEPTIDE MAY EXPLAIN FEMALE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

AEROBIC EXERCISE MAY BE KEY FOR ALZHEIMER’S PREVENTION.

That’s just one day of headlines on one medical site. The use of MAY is everywhere. “This may be the case—or not.” Maybe yes, maybe no.

Why not run these headlines instead?

THIS PEPTIDE MAY NOT EXPLAIN FEMALE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

‘GUARDIAN MOLECULE’ MAY NOT LEAD TO NEW TREATMENT.

Over the years, I’ve read thousands of medical articles, and most of the MAYBES disappear down the memory hole with no further comment. They’re just pap. Here today, gone tomorrow.

Besides serving the function of filling up space, the articles are public relations propaganda, designed to convince readers that “the cutting edge” of research is very fertile territory, and new advances are always “on the way.”

This press gibberish is little more than, say, producing new reasons to believe people who are holding Iraqi Dinars are on the verge of becoming millionaires.

Nevertheless, large numbers of people are encouraged by these MAYBE medical stories. They want to have faith. They don’t want interruptions to their trance-state. They would say, “If a dozen ‘maybe’ stories are published, at least a few of them will pan out, and that’s a good thing.”

If you have a lot of time on your hands, copy the headlines above and track what happens over the next few years. See if any of the “possible breakthroughs” actually turns into a useful medical treatment.

Better yet, perhaps, track the thousands of articles touting new discoveries in genetic research. Keep an eagle eye out for ONE form of gene therapy that cures ANY disease across the board. I’m not talking about a claim that a single patient has experienced a remission. I mean a therapy that cures a given disease for every diagnosed patient. After all, that’s the heraldic promise.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Like this:

Over the years, during my investigations of deep fraud, I’ve uncovered very popular medical diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.

Acceptance of this shocking truth would disrupt the “disease business” like a threshing machine moving through a wheat field.

Claims of diseases, based on tests, would be routinely turned back stamped UNPROVEN and FAKE.

ONE: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. Prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it.

However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They arbitrarily claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.

BOTTOM LINE: The truth is, a positive antibody test says nothing about whether a person is ill, will get ill, or is healthy. The true indicator is the strength of the entire immune system, not just the antibodies—and the overall strength of the immune system is NOT measured by an antibody test. THERE IS NO MEDICAL TEST THAT MEASURES THE OVERALL CONDITION OF A PERSON’S IMMUNE SYSTEM.

TWO: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. The test takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified. But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease—except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.

THREE: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. Why? Because there are no definitive tests. No blood or saliva or urine tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience. It’s on the level of diagnosing cancer in a patient on the basis of an interview.

FOUR: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But as I stated above, antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. A weak immune system’s antibodies are useless.

FIVE: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all, or hidden test results. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America. Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.

This gigantic scandal doesn’t just apply to Swine Flu. It applies to any kind of flu.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies. So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

The basic flu symptoms—cough, fever, chills, sore throat, muscle aches, weakness—can be caused by a variety of factors that have nothing to do with a flu virus.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.